Owner Of Porcello's Sues Town, Police

Says Ordinance Enforcement Violates Rights

August 23, 2007|By LARRY SMITH; Courant Staff Writer

ENFIELD — The owner of an automobile repair and used car company has filed a federal lawsuit against the town and the police department, asserting that their enforcement of the town's blight ordinance has been violating his constitutional rights.

The suit by Matthew Porcello, owner of Porcello's Inc., was filed in U.S. District Court in Hartford on Aug. 15. Porcello is seeking a declaratory judgment that the town and its agents have violated his rights and a permanent injunction against citing him. It also seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees.

Police Chief Carl Sferrazza declined to comment Wednesday. Town Attorney and Public Safety Director Christopher Bromson could not be reached for comment.

According to the lawsuit, the business's operations are at 710, 718, 704 and 699 Enfield St., and the company is licensed by the state to purchase, sell, repair and tow motor vehicles.

During the 1990s, Porcello's was subject to a number of enforcement actions by the town, which sought to prevent the business from storing vehicles on its property, the suit alleges.

Once Porcello hired an attorney to challenge the actions and demonstrate the company's compliance with local law, the town rescinded its enforcement actions, the suit says.

In 2005 and 2006, police officers began ticketing and threatening to tow vehicles stored on the Porcello property, saying storage of the vehicles violated the town's blight ordinance, the suit said.

The business was forced to remove the vehicles and sell them for salvage value, resulting in financial losses, the suit said. In 2006, Matthew Porcello refused to remove vehicles, which he believed were lawfully stored on his property, and was arrested under the town's blight ordinance. Those charges were dismissed by the court in January 2007, the suit said.

Porcello' suit alleges that the town arrested him without probable cause and violated his Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

The suit further asserts that the town had not enforced the ordinance against other similar businesses in Enfield.